Did David sin only against God?

[Guest]

Psalms 51:4 Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. NASB

It seems that word "only" was definitely used by David in this psalm. The Septuagint also uses the Greek word for "only" in its translation of this verse.

I wonder whether David was self-deceived? Did he not recognize that he had sinned against Uriah when he copulatated with his wife, and even impregnated her? And did David not commit the ultimate sin against Uriah having him placed in such a position in a war to ensure that he would die?

Does everyone agree that David was not being totally honest in singing this psalm to Yahweh? Or does someone have an ingenious explanation that will clear up the difficulty?

[Guest]

how about this possible uningenious interpretation?

sin is falling short of God's standard. since God sets the standard, technically sin is an offense against God alone.

that said, sin affects others. uriah was killed, and bathsheba was victimized. the innocent child died.

this may be a weak explanation but it is the best i can do on short notice.

TK

[Guest]

I know that in English "Only" can sometimes mean "Primarily" or refer to the "Most Significant" party involved. Is it possible the Hebrew word is that elastic too?

[Guest]

Perhaps David was getting at the fact that from God alone he could seek mercy and forgiveness, especially since Uriah was already dead.

[Guest]

I know that in English "Only" can sometimes mean "Primarily"

You do??? Never have I heard of that. I can't find "primarily" as a definition of "only" in any dictionary. Could you offer an English sentence in which "only" is used in that way?

sin is falling short of God's standard. since God sets the standard, technically sin is an offense against God alone.

I think of "sin" as that which is morally wrong. Is sin wrong because God sets the standard? Or does God set the standard because it is wrong?
If the former, then God might set a different standard tomorrow, if he wished. I suggest it is the latter.

Take the 10 commandments for example. Disobeying any of the last 6 would not affect God in the slightest. They are all sins against people:

5. Honour parents
6. No murder
7. No adultery
8. No theft
9. No false witness
10. No coveting

God set this standard because he loves and cares about people and their needs. But he also cares about his own glory:

1. No other gods
2. No graven images
3. No taking Yahweh's name lightly

The fourth one seems to both honour God and serve man's needs:

4a. The seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God.
4b. In it you shall not do any work. (A worker needs a day of recreation).

Jesus spoke of the two greatest commandments which sum up all ten:

... and one of [the Pharisees], a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"

He said to him, "’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.

And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Matthew 22:35-40

We can see that one of these commandments instructs us to love and honour God, putting him first above all else , and the other instructs us to love and honour people, helping them to fulfill their needs.

If we do the kind of thing David did, we are not only "falling short of God's standard". We are failing to love our neighbour.

[Guest]

I know that in English "Only" can sometimes mean "Primarily"

You do??? Never have I heard of that. I can't find "primarily" as a definition of "only" in any dictionary. Could you offer an English sentence in which "only" is used in that way?

Sure, but keep in mind that the way a word is used at a popular level doesn't always make it into the dictionaries. And that applies to English, Greek & Hebrew.

Here are a number of example off the top of my head:

1. Some people are "KING JAMES ONLY" but not really. They use that phrase to refer to the camp they are in, but once you talk to many of them you realize they just PREFER the King James or consider it their PRIMARY Bible translation.

2. In romance, a guy might say "You're the ONLY girl I've ever loved" whereas he might have said that very thing to 3 other girls. What he's really saying is that he considers this current girl the PRIMARY and MOST SIGNIFICANT love of his life.

3. In a conversation about sleep deprivation, someone might say "I ONLY sleep in on Saturday's" but this does not account for exceptions to that rule like snow days or sick days or whatnot. Once again, ONLY, here, refers to a PRIMARY truth.

Even if it isn't found in an English and/or Hebrew dictionary, I would think David was quite possibly referring to his PRIMARY or MOST SIGNIFICANT sin.

[Guest]

I think of "sin" as that which is morally wrong. Is sin wrong because God sets the standard? Or does God set the standard because it is wrong?
If the former, then God might set a different standard tomorrow, if he wished. I suggest it is the latter. (Paidion)

I can't see it this way at all! I am not a philosopher, but surely for something to be wrong, logic would require that someone first set a standard. For God to have to set a certain standard because something is already morally right or wrong, implies that He has to comply with a higher authority.
Deu 32:39 See now that I, I am He, and there is no god with me. I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is no deliverer out of My hand.

As for God setting a different standard tomorrow, if he wished....that might be true of a capricious god out of Greek mythology, but fortunately for us we are told differently:
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock; His work is perfect. For all His ways are just, a God of faithfulness, and without evil; just and upright is He.
and
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Regarding the original question about David - I personally don't think David was self-deceived in this. He might have been while he was sinning, but I don't think God would regard David as a man after His own heart if David continued in this deception, I don't think that would show a true repentance. So I also think there must be a different explanation, maybe along the lines already suggested by others.

[Guest]

Well said, Sue!

[Guest]

I can't see it this way at all! I am not a philosopher, but surely for something to be wrong, logic would require that someone first set a standard. For God to have to set a certain standard because something is already morally right or wrong, implies that He has to comply with a higher authority.

Okay. With that in mind let's consider one of the verses you quoted:

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock; His work is perfect. For all His ways are just, a God of faithfulness, and without evil; just and upright is He.

If God sets the moral standard as to what is what is just or upright, what would it mean to say that God is just or upright? Does it mean no more than that God follows his own standards? And what is the basis of those standards? Are they simply the actions that God happens to prefer?
Is so, what if He happened to prefer seeing people murder each other, commit adultery, and cheat and steal from each other, and then commanded that? "Oh", you say, "But God isn't like that. That's not his character." And that is precisely my point. God is LOVE. That describes his character. Thus God commands that which arises out of LOVE, do that which will help your neighbour not harm him. Do not murder others. Do not commit adultery. Do not cheat. Do not steal. All of these things harm other people and cause distress and suffering.

Conclusion: God doesn't arbitrarily command something and it is therefore right. Rather the thing he commands is already right: that which will benefit other people.

Every sin against another person is that which harms him or causes distress of suffering or loss of life. Such actions would be contrary to love, and therefore be wrong even if God did not exist. But God does exist, and he is a God of love. Therefore he commands them.

[Guest]

Hi Michelle, and thanks!
Paidion, I'm still puzzled and trying to understand your view. I'm sort of musing out loud, so please bear with me.

Conclusion: God doesn't arbitrarily command something and it is therefore right. Rather the thing he commands is already right: that which will benefit other people.

But I don't think God's commands are necessarily arbitrary; the standards He sets are according to His own character, which as you say, IS Love; but He still sets those standards, & that is what makes them right, because He is God the Creator, & has the right to choose & set the rules.
Am I going around in circles?
Maybe we think that the thing God commands is morally right only because we are His children, and being spiritually re-born, share His character; an atheist might prefer to follow the rule of the jungle, and think it is more right to do that which benefits himself rather than other people.
Another thought: what about God instructing Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? To follow through would cause Abraham to go against the law of love towards Isaac & cause him definite harm, but Abraham chose to rather be obedient to God's specific instructions.

Every sin against another person is that which harms him or causes distress of suffering or loss of life. Such actions would be contrary to love, and therefore be wrong even if God did not exist.

If God did not exist, & set a moral standard, I still don't see how any right or wrong could possibly exist.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be said! But I did not know sin except through the law. For also I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust.
om 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.